Sexual Orientation -- Not A Choice -- Physiology

About the only humans who can choose their sexual orientation are those born bisexual.  We simply are wired how we are wired and nothing in this age can change that.  In my article "Probably Not The Final Word, But . . .", I presented my somewhat alien theory that an increase in gay and lesbian populations in each great empire may be caused by overcrowding, and it would still be physiological if that were to prove the case.  I will even venture to say that if you are absolutely sure that it is a choice because, based on your experience, you made the righteous choice, then you are probably wired both ways.  Apparently Freud was, as he saw all humans as being closet gays.


Picture the struggle of the young male, who with the children in his neighborhood, called the enemies by the worst word they could think about  --  faggots.  Have you ever thought of the mental issues derived from his struggle when he begins to realize he is gay?  This is not his choice.  This is how he was born.  I've seen it happen.


I think the problem of the human species, which shows its ugly head in a lot of controversies, is that we want to hold ourselves as superior to all other species.  We think we are better than a cow or a horse or a worm or a snake and therefore we spend our time and efforts in trying to prove so. 


"They are acting like animals," is a frequent complaint.  Well, they are animals and so are the rest of us.  So generations of humans have exerted great efforts to prove their basic wish that they are better than other species and better than each other. 


The Jewish and Christian scriptures tell of God creating first man and first woman.  First man was placed in the garden which God had made in the east of Eden. He was told he could eat from all the trees but the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Many cultures today still translate sex as the "fruit of that tree" from which Adam was not to eat.  Big error, folks!  Adam was put in the garden and told not to eat of the tree even before God made the animals  . . .  way before He made Eve.  So, the forbidden fruit really was about knowledge and good and evil.  It was not about sex.


It's easier, now that we have spent so much time worrying about the Middle East and seeing the ugliness of the hate there, for us to understand how the oral stories of early man became so conflicted that sex became the eternal sin.  But when you think about it, modern man can turn anything into a sin.  "If it tastes good, it must be bad for you."  "If it is greasy thou shalt not touch it."  "Oh, wow, we were wrong!  It's sugar we should avoid."  And, "I'm so much superior to you because I don't touch either one."


Sex of some sort is how animals of all sorts reproduce.  Sex is not only physiological, it is a biological requirement of maintaining the species, no matter what kind we are.


Now, we get to the chemistry of it all.  Our bodies respond chemically  --  physically  --  to each other, or not.  Since the demise of my marriage, I've spent more than twice as many years single as I was married.  I've had plenty of time to figure out a "type" to which my body can and cannot respond.  Ideal man almost always would be between size 5'8" and 5' 10" or 11".  He would have some shade of brown hair or either pure white.  He would be of stocky build and barrel chested.  He would almost never have blonde or black hair.  And he should be within a decade of my own age, either way.


I even classify "turn-ons" as primary or secondary.  You know how some people swear they fell in love at first sight, but others say that's not possible, because they don't know each other.  That love at first sight is chemistry at first sight and for rare people, it can be so strong that it lasts a lifetime.  There are, of course, exceptions to all "rules" of chemical attraction  --  like a predilection for scrawny little redheads, even after their hair has gone white.


A secondary "turn-on" is a relationship that wasn't much at first sight, but grows from getting to know each other and appreciating each other's good qualities like kindness, intelligence, compatibility.  Herein lies the love part, folks.


I think the primary turn-on has a basis in physiology that goes even beyond simple attraction.  Let's say, a 6' 7" man and a 5' 0" woman were to marry.  It doesn't take much brainwork to anticipate that she will have trouble delivering his children, does it?  So the body usually makes subtle and subconscious choices for us from the get-go.


You see, chemistry rules some choices in and some choices out.  But it is how we get on outside the bedrooms that should choose our mates.  If we have to place a "religious" evaluation on sexual orientation, perhaps we can choose to leave sexual orientation and choice of mates in God's hands.  Since God remains mostly silent these days, we might have trouble reading his wishes.  But still, whether we have a choice of whom our bodies respond to is based on how God created us.  Whom we choose as mates depends on how well we get along with each other. The longer we spend together, the more the love grows, or not.


No wonder people revel in the right to choose their own mates.  How can our parents know what person inspires our chemistry or what one repels us?  How can the right person who can work things out best with us be chosen by a father who has his eye out toward building his own empire?


Yet, people want to ignore their animal instincts  --  chemistry  --  by referring to all sexual attraction as "love", and the more romantic, the better.  You can help whom you love.  Whom you hang around with, grow close to and eventually marry is a choice.  It's just that the body responds without control, but love grows when we choose the best people to whom the body responds  --  the ones who meet our nonsexual needs as well. 


We should not place ourselves as critics of another's choice, especially the physiological part which is not in our control.  We should not choose another man's mate any more than we would want him to choose ours.  And we bloody well are not superior to any other being whether our species or not.

Obedience

John Ruskin, an author who critiqued art and architecture during the 1800's, is said to have had the following architectural ideals  --  obedience, truth, power, beauty, life, memory and sacrifice.  Good thing I'm not an architect because I can't fathom a building obeying anyone or anything.  How about you?  But then, obeying was never my greatest skill when I was young.  Don't misunderstand.  I wasn't one of those disobedient kids at school.  I did everything by the book there.  I even told on myself for slapping the kid that kissed me at recess.  It was first grade.


Nevertheless, I had a bad rep at home.  My mother found herself driven to exquisite forms of punishment over my "sassy" mouth.  It was so bad that one of my brothers told me that I had always been the most rebellious person he had ever known.  I told him I thought I'd always had a lot to rebel against.


Why is it people are told they need to obey everyone?  We got a stomach full of it at church.  We were to obey God, our parents, our teachers, our older neighbors, our older siblings and on and on and on.  "Trust and obey, for there's no other way. . ."


If our parents neglected to teach obedience, we got another goodly measure of it at school.   Come on little ducklings.  Get yourselves all in a row.  Even the birds assume a V formation.  Everyone in their place and a place for everyone.  Get back in that line.  Keep your lines straight.


Then when we get through twelve or thirteen years of conforming obedience, they start yelling for us to think outside the box.  Duh!


Mind your p's and q's.  Listen to your teacher.  Don't you dare stray from the group.  Take care of your "due diligence".  They take the creativity right out of life with all their rule making.  Federal law.  State law.  County, city, coop, school . . .  rules, rules, rules.  Well, you've got your rules so embedded that we almost flip out when someone runs into us because he is walking down the left side of a hallway.  Didn't he learn anything in school?


And then we have Mr. Ruskin saying a building needs to have obedience.  Really now!  Aren't you the original little ole control freak?  Even inanimate objects are required to obey you.  Or are they?  Inanimate, I mean!  A building stands there proudly, larger than life and exuding beauty, obedience, truth, power, life, memory and sacrifice . . .


. . . exuding "creativity", which from obedience doth not come.

Game Playing In Everyday Life

Some people become so bored with their jobs that they begin to engage in game playing.  Most of you know about game playing by this time.  Transactional Analysis, a phenomenon I refer to as a layman's approach to psychology, describes games as ways of structuring time.  They can be either conscious or subconscious.  In other words, we can be either aware or unaware that we have gotten ourselves caught up in games.  But that doesn't make them any less real.


They can be played by clerks and secretaries in offices.  They can be played by teachers.  Even psychologists and psychiatrists can find themselves engaged in them.  It would not be unheard of to find anyone, say mail carriers, involved.


The problem with games is that they leave no winners.  Everyone walks away from games with bad feelings.  The victim, of course, feels the put-down he was meant to feel.  But the perpetrator never quite gets the desired satisfaction much less the high he is seeking.  Best for all concerned that we all try to avoid starting or getting hooked in games.

Sour Grapes or Religious Fact?

There are several mentions on Facebook that criticize what are being called "prosperity" religious programs.  You know the ones  --  they tell us that God wants his people to have abundance in their lives.  Some of the criticisms mention specific programs.  Others are just general messages.


One such critique told of a man and his wife who were students living in near poverty conditions.  The gentleman said they really wanted to believe that God would offer abundance to his children who truly believed and who tithed their income.  But it apparently did not work out for them.


My experience with these types of ministers is limited to Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen. They have all at one time or another taught those of us who will listen that it is necessary to stay in the faith while believing God for a financial  -- or healing  --  or whatever needed  --  miracle in our lives.  Telling God every other day that his assistance is lacking or a day late and a dollar short hardly qualifies as staying in the faith.


What these ministers offer is hope and a positive approach to religion.  If you had heard some of the hellfire and brimstone sermons that I have heard over the years, you would welcome such ministers with open arms.  Jesus, himself, though not one hundred per cent positive was certainly not one of the hellfire and brimstone types.  He taught love and faith and hope and charity.  He taught us not to judge others.  He taught us to turn the other cheek.  He said we should cast the first stone only if we, ourselves, were above reproach. 


I think with some of the authors of these critiques, we see a little sour grapes.  While the critic's churches are dwindling in attendance, the "prosperity" preachers have to find sports arenas to hold their crowds. 


Perhaps one way to determine the genuine belief and trustworthiness of the pastors is to look for examples of faith rewarded in them and their families.  For instance, Joel Osteen tells a story about his mother's desire to have her own swimming pool.  For years and years, she prayed for a pool.  She positively stated she was going to have one.  She measured the space and told everyone that was where it would be put.  Her husband was always very negative about the idea.  They couldn't afford it he would say.  Then, one day someone told him that he wanted to give the family a swimming pool.  Dear old dad responded in the negative about the prospect.  But Joel's mother gratefully accepted.  When her husband donned swimming trunks to swim with the family, she jokingly told him that he couldn't swim in her pool  This kind of faith is a telling factor in the family belief system.  And possibly it is the main reason God listens to and rewards their positive prayers.


There are sometimes other factors why God doesn't give us a positive answer to our prayers.  For instance, sometimes we need the lessons we can learn from doing without our heart's desires.  Sometimes he is preparing us for our greatest challenges.


Joel Osteen always cautions us by saying that we will have the finances, skills and resources to fulfill whatever plan God wants us to handle as long as we stay in the faith.


Do you suffer from sour grape syndrome, or are you one of the positive thinkers?